Evaluation of optimization methods for intensity-based 2D-3D registration in x-ray guided interventions
Abstract
The advantage of 2D-3D image registration methods versus direct image-to-patient registration, is that these methods generally do not require user interaction (such as manual annotations), additional machinery or additional acquisition of 3D data. A variety of intensity-based similarity measures has been proposed and evaluated for different applications. These studies showed that the registration accuracy and capture range are influenced by the choice of similarity measure. However, the influence of the optimization method on intensity-based 2D-3D image registration has not been investigated. We have compared the registration performance of seven optimization methods in combination with three similarity measures: gradient difference, gradient correlation, and pattern intensity. Optimization methods included in this study were: regular step gradient descent, Nelder-Mead, Powell-Brent, Quasi-Newton, nonlinear conjugate gradient, simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation, and evolution strategy. Registration experiments were performed on multiple patient data sets that were obtained during cerebral interventions. Various component combinations were evaluated on registration accuracy, capture range, and registration time. The results showed that for the same similarity measure, different registration accuracies and capture ranges were obtained when different optimization methods were used. For gradient difference, largest capture ranges were obtained with Powell-Brent an…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Classical 2D/3D rigid registration methods apply ray tracing to CT volumes to render synthetic X-rays (DRRs).
“Classical 2D/3D rigid registration methods apply ray tracing to CT volumes to render synthetic X-rays, referred to as digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) in medical imaging [4, 53].”
From Intraoperative 2D/3D Image Registration via Differentiable X-Ray Rendering (2024) · cites this paper as [53]
Cites
Powell, M. J. D. (1964) · The Computer Journal · doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155 · Cited by 4,632 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(15) Each iteration, exact line minimization is commenced along dk, representing each of the transform parameters (conjugate) directions separately.”
BackgroundCompletely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies
Hansen, N., & Ostermeier, A. (2001) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/106365601750190398 · Cited by 4,397 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intraoperative 2D/3D Image Registration via Differentiable X-Ray Rendering
Gopalakrishnan, V., Dey, N., & Golland, P. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01108 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“Classical 2D/3D rigid registration methods apply ray tracing to CT volumes to render synthetic X-rays, referred to as digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) in medical imaging [4, 53].”
Background
- Authors
- van der Bom, I. M. J., Klein, S., Staring, M., Homan, R., Bartels, L. W., & Pluim, J. P. W.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Leiden University (NL)
- Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Venue
- SPIE Proceedings
- Publisher
- SPIE
- Published
- 2011-03-03
- Volume
- 7962
- Pages
- 796223
- ISSN
- 0277-786X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090633329
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Keywords
- 2D-3D registration, intensity-based registration, optimization methods, cone-beam computed tomography, digital radiography, similarity measures, Nelder-Mead, simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation, registration accuracy, capture range, registration time
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review